PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

50r however did not complete right turn, used to U turn
tommy12345
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:04
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



I received the attached 50r notice (my vehicle marked with red dot). However I did not complete the turn fully as I performed a U turn at the mounh of the entrance to join the opposite flow of traffic (going upwards in photo) from where I was travelling (going downwards).

Do I have grounds to appeal this?

Thanks

This post has been edited by tommy12345: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:38
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 139)
Advertisement
post Wed, 17 Jan 2018 - 11:04
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
tommy12345
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 11:56
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



Thanks Mick.

Just to be clear I am assuming the amendments are on your Friday post in bold.

Agreed, will submit tomorrow subject to any other feedback.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 12:21
Post #122


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Yes, post 115.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 12:22
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Perhaps your strongest card is that some of your evidence wasn't before the adjudicator: On the same issue on
which Mick now enlarges.

I'm conscious of time and I'm conscious that it was my rejig of the appeal that failed, so I don't want to throw
another spanner in the works.

But I've just re-read the decision and realised the dismissiveness of the adjudicator re document flaws.

He directly mentioned alleged flawed periods in the NoR ONLY. He did not, as far as I read, address the
two X 4 day differences in the PCN.

I know we can't challenge a 'finding of fact'/'opinion' in that regard but a failure to consider or examine at all?

(and as usual a total dodge of examining what actually happens to progression in practice).

Time is short: I don't know if any addition would be worthwhile or valid?

Maybe just a single sentence, or two, to potentially get it on the table?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 12:33
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Ignored flaws in PCN must IMO be mentioned.
Especially on time periods.
Those are sacrosanct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 12:39
Post #125


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@Neil B

Abject apologies--in trying to get this done I forgot about your valuable ground. Just input something on another Havering case which I pinched from PMB--perhaps a paragraph like this?-----

With respect the adjudicator has not fully considered the issue relating to the validity of the PCN and, in the interests of justice, needs give a definitive view on the following ground.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 at 4(8)(a)(iii) states. That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice"

The PCN fails here. It states " 28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served. This is in the normal course of post, two working days later. this would create an obvious prejudice, and fail to comply with the regulations.

The PCN fails similarly at 4(8)(a)(iv) using the same date of service rather than date of notice.

The PCN fails to comply with the regulations and is thereby, in my opinion, a nullity which cannot demand a penalty. To amplify this ground I would refer to ETA case 2180111742.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 12:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 12:54
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 13:39) *
@Neil B

Abject apologies--in trying to get this done I forgot about your valuable ground. Just input something on another Havering case which I pinched from PMB--perhaps a paragraph like this?-----

With respect the adjudicator has not fully considered the issue relating to the validity of the PCN and, in the interests of justice, needs give a definitive view on the following ground.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 at 4(8)(a)(iii) states. That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice"

The PCN fails here. It states " 28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served. This is in the normal course of post, two working days later. this would create an obvious prejudice, and fail to comply with the regulations.

The PCN fails similarly at 4(8)(a)(iv) using the same date of service rather than date of notice.

The PCN fails to comply with the regulations and is thereby, in my opinion, a nullity which cannot demand a penalty. To amplify this ground I would refer to ETA case 2180111742.

Mick

At this late stage Mick, that would be ideal to, as I say, get it on the table.

I'm sorry I haven't contributed since the initial decision: For me at the moment the sky is falling in, on everything at once huh.gif


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tommy12345
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 13:30
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



To update draft based on latest comments please see below:

My changes
1. "under Regulation 15©" to "under Regulation 15C"
2. Some end fill in quotation marks to tidy up
3. "This is in the normal course of post, two working days later..." to "This, considering the normal course of post being two working days later, would create an obvious prejudice and fail to comply with the regulations."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect, I wish to apply for a Review of the decision in case ETA 2180105331 because it is necessary in the interests of justice. In particular I would offer additional evidence which suggests a Decision based on the traffic sign in isolation is prejudicial in that there has been no consideration of the traffic management reasons for that sign.

Whilst the Decision appears logical under the terms of Sect 64/65 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to nationally approved signs it fails to take account of the Council’s responsibilities under The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

That responsibility means that a traffic sign can only be erected if restrictions indicated by the traffic sign are the same as those authorised by the TMO.

The issue I argue is twofold - first an adjudicator might mislead himself if he rules on the basis of a TSRGD sign in isolation without reference to the Council’s obligations under LATOR 1996 and;

The sign erected by the Council under LATOR 1996 for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is deficient under Regulation 15C.

The Council’s obligations are clear as demonstrated by the following cases:-

In James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Giving a judgment with which the other members of the court agreed, Winn LJ said:

"The authority should take all such steps as are reasonably practicable for the purpose of securing that adequate information is given to persons using the said roads.

The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.”

Also in :- Moss, R (on the application of) v KPMG Llp [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin) (14 October 2010)

“The statutory requirement in the procedure order that the prohibition be adequately signed had not been met, and the offence of breaching the prohibition could not be proved. Those cases make it clear that if a traffic sign does not adequately inform the driver as to what is forbidden or where, the penalty cannot be enforced and, in a criminal context, no offence is committed.”

In Macleod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T. 305 Lord Clyde said, at 308

“ It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise."

Paragraph 4.10 of the Department for Transport's Guidance deals with signing. It provides:

"Local authorities should check that signs comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, are up to date, consistent with the Traffic Regulations Orders and are properly and visibly mounted."

In addition to the above, with respect the adjudicator has not fully considered the issue relating to the validity of the PCN and, in the interests of justice, needs give a definitive view on the following ground.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 at 4(8)(a)(iii) states that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice"

The PCN fails here. It states "28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served". This, considering the normal course of post being two working days later, would create an obvious prejudice and fail to comply with the regulations.

The PCN fails similarly at 4(8)(a)(iv) using the same date of service rather than date of notice.

The PCN fails to comply with the regulations and is thereby, in my opinion, a nullity which cannot demand a penalty. To amplify this ground I would refer to ETA case 2180111742.

-------------------------
Consistency with the traffic order is therefore critical in my view. However if we examine the traffic order relating to the prohibition it clearly states that there is no right turn “into the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building“. Therefore the erected sign does not comply with the terms of the traffic order and I did not enter this proscribed area.
Furthermore I would reiterate the inadequacy of the signage because, as per Edward Houghton in ETA 2150440632 “if the Council wished to prohibit U-Turns then appropriate signage is necessary“. He further noted that the Traffic Order for this location only prohibits a right turn into the loading area.
.

Ergo, Reg 18 of LATOR 1996 cannot have been complied with because there is insufficient signing to convey to drivers the restriction imposed by the Traffic Order and, as per Mr. Houghton, restricting U-turns. It is clear that the Council allows “authorised vehicles” to make the turn into the loading area as noted in its Notice of Rejection dated 23 February which clearly states "Any vehicle, other than those permitted, observed contravening the regulation is recorded and subsequently issued with a Penalty Charge Notice". Any suggestion that this is a permitted route for certain vehicles is clearly incorrect. Given the above I would contend that the signage is totally inadequate and cannot be considered in isolation from the above matters.


Yours-----
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 13:32
Post #128


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OK---I have amended the draft at post 115. I think Neil's point is key because they can concentrate on that rather than the "thornier" issue of the TMO/Sign.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tommy12345
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 13:38
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



Mick, we crossed posts so I will apply small changes I made as per last post to your lastest edit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With respect, I wish to apply for a Review of the decision in case ETA 2180105331 because it is necessary in the interests of justice. In particular I would offer additional evidence which suggests a Decision based on the traffic sign in isolation is prejudicial in that there has been no consideration of the traffic management reasons for that sign. In addition the inadequacy of the PCN itself has not been fully considered and I would contend that the adjudicator misdirected himself if he has concluded that, in law, the document, complies on the basis of the Hackney Drivers case and others of that ilk.

1) Traffic Sign

Whilst the Decision to reject the appeal appears logical under the terms of Sect 64/65 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to nationally approved signs it fails to take account of the Council’s responsibilities under The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

That responsibility means that a traffic sign can only be erected if restrictions indicated by the traffic sign are the same as those authorised by the TMO.

The issue I argue is twofold--first an adjudicator might mislead himself if he rules on the basis of a TSRGD sign in isolation without reference to the Council’s obligations under LATOR 1996 and;

The sign erected by the Council under LATOR 1996 for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is deficient under Regulation 15C.

The Council’s obligations are clear as demonstrated by the following cases:-

In James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Giving a judgment with which the other members of the court agreed, Winn LJ said:

“The authority should take all such steps as are reasonably practicable for the purpose of securing that adequate information is given to persons using the said roads.

The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.”

Also in :- Moss, R (on the application of) v KPMG Llp [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin) (14 October 2010)

“The statutory requirement in the procedure order that the prohibition be adequately signed had not been met, and the offence of breaching the prohibition could not be proved. Those cases make it clear that if a traffic sign does not adequately inform the driver as to what is forbidden or where, the penalty cannot be enforced and, in a criminal context, no offence is committed.”

In Macleod v Hamilton 1965 S.L.T. 305 Lord Clyde said, at 308

“ It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise."

Paragraph 4.10 of the Department for Transport's Guidance deals with signing. It provides:

"Local authorities should check that signs comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, are up to date, consistent with the Traffic Regulations Orders and are properly and visibly mounted."
-------------------------
Consistency with the traffic order is therefore critical in my view. However if we examine the traffic order relating to the prohibition it clearly states that there is no right turn “into the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building“. Therefore the erected sign does not comply with the terms of the traffic order and I did not enter this proscribed area.
Furthermore I would reiterate the inadequacy of the signage because, as per Edward Houghton in ETA 2150440632 “if the Council wished to prohibit U-Turns then appropriate signage is necessary“. He further noted that the Traffic Order for this location only prohibits a right turn into the loading area.
.

Ergo, Reg 18 of LATOR 1996 cannot have been complied with because there is insufficient signing to convey to drivers the restriction imposed by the Traffic Order and, as per Mr. Houghton, restricting U-turns. It is clear that the Council allows “authorised vehicles” to make the turn into the loading area as noted in its Notice of Rejection dated 23 February which clearly states "Any vehicle, other than those permitted, observed contravening the regulation is recorded and subsequently issued with a Penalty Charge Notice". Any suggestion that this is a permitted route for certain vehicles is clearly incorrect. Given the above I would contend that the signage is totally inadequate and cannot be considered in isolation from the above matters.

2) Validity of the Penalty Charge Notice

With respect, the adjudicator has not fully considered the issue relating to the validity of the PCN and, in the interests of justice, needs give a definitive view on the following ground.

The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 at 4(8)(a)(iii) states. That the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice"

The PCN fails here. It states "28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served". This, considering the normal course of post being two working days later, would create an obvious prejudice and fail to comply with the regulations.

The PCN fails similarly at 4(8)(a)(iv) using the same date of service rather than date of notice.

Therefore the PCN fails to comply with the regulations and is thereby, in my opinion, a nullity which cannot demand a penalty. To support this ground I would refer to ETA case 2180111742 which concludes----"As a result of its invalidity it is no longer enforceable".


Yours-----
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 29 Apr 2018 - 14:11
Post #130


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Page 49 this document.

https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HR...ND-03(2006).pdf

RIGHT TO A REASONED JUDGEMENT

Article 6 requires that the domestic courts give reasons for their judgements in both civil and criminal proceedings. Courts are not obligated to give detailed answers to every question. But if a submission is fundamental to the outcome of the case the court then must specifically deal with it in its judgement

each and every point made by Neil is a significant point the reasoning is crucial to the outcome of the appeal and must be explained The smoke and mirrors of SC cannot do so


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tommy12345
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 11:47
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



Gents,

I received a letter from London Tribunals rejecting the review of decision.

Is this the end of the road and full payment of fine has to be made?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:45
Post #132


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---- could you post up the rejection letter please? They must give a reason why they won't consider a Review.

Could go back again, but it depends what the letter says.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tommy12345
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 21:39
Post #133


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



Mick

Here you go, apologies for quality of photos

http://tinypic.com/r/28m1zlx/9
http://tinypic.com/r/mjbm9u/9

Please let me know as early as possible to avoid 50% charge certificate
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 01:26
Post #134


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



At this point the only possible next step is a JR PAP letter, you never know it might prompt the tribunal to look at the case properly and (aside from quite a lot of drafting time) doesn't cost anything. Neil B not sure if you fancy a go as you drafted the bulk of the appeal?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 07:57
Post #135


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I think the PAP approach should be used sparingly and this isn't the case to use it. If another Review request is submitted it will bypass Thorne who appears to be used as the filter/triage for Review requests. In that role and I find him to be less likely to grant a request than others.

The request was not a rehash of existing arguments neither was it a simple disagreement with the original adjudicator. there is no suggestion that the original adjudicator referred to the TMO which would have satisfied us that the circumstances of the case were fully considered.

Subject to views I can draft another Review request which should head off any Charge Certificate action for the time being since the OP is understandably concerned about that action by the Council.

So views on the tactics for the next request please.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:29
Post #136


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



With an eye on charge certificate, pay now.
This doesn't prevent any further request for review and will be refunded if successful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tommy12345
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 10:41
Post #137


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



OK. I will pay today as suggested by DancingDad. Does anyone object to this? Please let me know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 11:20
Post #138


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



DD is right.

Paying pending a review is one of the instances where an adjudicator would order a refund in the event of a successful review. The other main one is a successful appeal to tribunal folowing payment to release a vehicle from the pound.

Failure in your case to pay now would result in the charges escalating in the usual way, reaching the bailiffs if (legitimate) demands for ever-increasing sums demanded were unpaid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 13:04
Post #139


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 02:26) *
At this point the only possible next step is a JR PAP letter, you never know it might prompt the tribunal to look at the case properly and (aside from quite a lot of drafting time) doesn't cost anything. Neil B not sure if you fancy a go as you drafted the bulk of the appeal?

Very kind but I think Mick and/or yourself/others more appropriate overall.

I'm also still a bit snowed trying to look after my self rolleyes.gif


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tommy12345
post Sun, 13 May 2018 - 19:11
Post #140


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,008



To confirm full payment was made.

I await further direction.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:09
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here